Marc--
Sounds like we might have an interesting research project here. I'll PM you later and see if we can come up with something.
John
Marc--
Sounds like we might have an interesting research project here. I'll PM you later and see if we can come up with something.
John
What do you think about Fareed Zakaria's explanation?
Quote:
THE BROADER REASON FOR THE RISE OF ISLAMIC politics has been the failure of secular politics. Secularism exists in the Middle East. It is embodied by Saddam Hussein and Muammar Kaddafi and Hosni Mubarak and Yasir Arafat. Arabs believe that they have tried Western-style politics and it has brought them tyranny and stagnation. They feel that they got a bastardized version of the West and that perhaps the West was not the right model for them anyway. Islamic fundamentalism plays deeply to these feelings. It evokes authenticity, pride, cultural assertiveness and defiance. These ideas have been powerful sources of national identity throughout history and remain so, especially in an age of globalized economics and American power. In face of the powerlessness, alienation and confusion that the modern world breeds, these groups say simply, "Islam is the solution."
http://www.fareedzakaria.com/ARTICLE...ek/021306.htmlQuote:
The political Islamist movement has changed over the last 15 years. Through much of the 1980s and 1990s, Islamic fundamentalists had revolutionary aims. They sought the violent overthrow of Western-allied regimes to have them replaced with Islamic states. This desire for Islamic states and not Western-style democracies was at the core of their message. Often transnational in their objectives, they spoke in global terms. But it turned out that the appeal of this ideology was limited. People in Algeria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and countless other places rejected it; in fact, they grudgingly accepted the dictatorships they lived under rather than support violent extremism. In this sense, political Islam did fail.
But over time, many of the Islamists recognized this reality and began changing their program. They came to realize that shorn of violent overthrow, revolution and social chaos, their ideas could actually gain considerable popular support. So they reinvented themselves, emphasizing not revolutionary overthrow but peaceful change, not transnational ideology but national reform. They were still protesting the dictators, but now they organized demonstrations in favor of democracy and honest politics.
Zakaria's book "The Future of Freedom" gives longer explanation. And there is that dempgraphic explanation also. There is just too many young men in Arab countries :)
I think thats what Huntingdon said in Clash of Civilizations; that its probably all down to demographics rather than anything else. I'll try and remember the page number.
I think Salafi jihadists target the US because of America's military protection of the Gulf states.
Knock the US out, the Saudi monarchy (as well as many of the surrounding countries) is as good as gone. Saudi Arabia's rule of law is no different than the Talliban.
I believe the answer lies in the broader question. What motivates individuals to join violent organizations? What leads Tim Mcveigh to bomb OKC? What leads anarchists to riot at the WTO? What gives rise to gang wars? How is Islamic hatred different than other insurgent/radical/guerilla? Either a personal trauma, an impoverished childhood, nothing better to do, ignorance or education could all lead to a break from the pro-social into anti-social/criminal/terrorists behavior. They believe they are justified or they believe they are going to get away with it.
Having gone off track a bit. I believe Opportunity and Means and some personal motivation incubated in a environment that will support the movement.
Just my personal opinions.
It is not an "either/or" situation. Human societies are complex, yet they also have simple patterns. Both observations are true. Islamist terrorists are driven by religious ideology, but they are also motivated by percieved injustices (Israeli occupation and its hypocritical support by the US being the most obvious). The question is frequently asked why Israeli occupation alone is such a problem? But that is like asking why 9-11 was such a big deal when more people than that die in Traffic accidents every month. Why not a war on traffic rather than a war on terror? Its because of a whole network of framing assumptions that make one category completely different from another in people's minds (rightly or wrongly). Whether its a good thing or not, the fact is that groups of human beings use many shortcuts to simplify decisions. "Us" and "them" are defined for them by these shortcuts (but its always a moving target, things change but they change in fits and starts). Hypocrisy is a huge big deal for most human beings (we are also ALL hypocrites, go figure). Anyway, let me try again: To the extent that the Islamists are motivated by firm belief in islamist theology, they are irreconcilable with the infidel world. But its always surprising to see that they SAY these are their beliefs and those beliefs (infidels must submit, muslims must rule, house of war, house of peace, etc. etc) seem incompatible with peaceful coexistance, yet they have very specific grievances and it does seem that without those grievances in play, MOST of them would no longer be in the fight...does that make sense? AND we must keep in mind that people are people before they become muslims or christians or jews. Our biological human failings and motivations run much deeper than our ideologies. Our ideologies themselves are built on layers of culture and cannot always be taken at face value...